get_social_org

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the 200-item limit, the hierarchical path format, and that memo fields contain affiliation info. It doesn't explicitly state read-only behavior, but '조회' (query) implies it. It lacks details on pagination or authentication, but for a lookup tool this is adequate.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise and well-structured, with a main statement, a note on format, and a warning about limits, followed by parameter explanations. Slightly more detail than necessary but each sentence adds value; the warning is front-loaded before usage.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the simplicity of the tool (2 optional parameters) and presence of an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers filters, the limit, and data format. It doesn't explain how to retrieve all 6,306 items or pagination, but the warning implies the need for filtering. Sufficient for a lookup tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema has 0% description coverage, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It thoroughly explains each parameter with examples and partial-match semantics, far exceeding the minimal schema of just type and default.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: querying organization information from the social contribution portal, specifically for Korean Railroad Corporation's full organizational hierarchy. It provides the exact hierarchical path format and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_social_funds or get_social_donations by focusing on org details.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear usage context by explaining the 200-item cap and recommending filters. It also specifies parameter usage with partial-match examples. However, it does not explicitly compare itself to alternatives or state when not to use it, though the purpose is distinct enough.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.